Why does she still have her kids?
I previously labeled the woman who drove at three times the legal blood alcohol limit, with her two year old in the car, as effectively a child abuser.
My fears for her kids grow today, learning there are five of them. But the clanger is when asked if she had an alcohol problem, she replied “To me it’s not, but to them it is.”
Wow, so reassuring that she won’t fo it again.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: New Zealand
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:09 am
Now if it had been a dad in the same boat? I wonder…………
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:16 am
“Now if it had been a dad in the same boat? I wonder…………”
I wonder…….. what if it’d been a muslim lesbian satanist webtroll dad with a hook for a foot?
Whatever, these kids would definitely be better off in fantasyland.
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:58 am
Why does she still have her kids? Because this country is run by F Wits. After the kids have been killed by a drunken boyfriend, car accident unrestrained, burnt to death while playing with matches while mum is on the piss. There will be a out pouring of anger and resentment from her family, from the child’s fathers family from bleeding hearts about how these children died. Simple case of take the children out of the danger zone until the parent can prove they are capable of supporting and caring for the child. Maori have been very critical of the justice system in relation to the way it is weighted against Maori and also the way Maori family units are miss understood by the rest of us, well here is a chance for someone in this woman’s Fanau or tribe to stop the carnage. Simple really!
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:52 am
With whatever respect might be due, does an expensively educated childless white blogger really have any concern for this woman’s offspring other than using them for a convenient political football? Say it ain’t so, DPF.
Already it’s provoked a Maori-bashing post.
If you check the Herald article, you may notice mention of the ‘heroic’ action of one Pat Ratu, truck driver, in preventing the hapless Coburn from wiping out herself & her kid.
Maori (and decent human being) happens to do the Right Thing.
Stopped the carnage. Simple really!
Can’t let that get in the way of a good Maori-bash, of course.
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:09 am
‘Why does she still have her kids?‘
Maybe it’s because CYFS are afraid that if they took the kids away you’d be accusing them of kidnapping.
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:18 am
Dim: Maybe it’s because CYFS are afraid that if they took the kids away you’d be accusing them of kidnapping.
Don’t be silly. Of course beating a clearly disturbed child with a riding crop isn’t abusive …
For the avoidance of doubt, yes that was irony.
Cheers,
RB
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:10 pm
woppo – you sad toss pot, where has anyone made any statement bashing Maori, the woman is Maori fact! The child needs to be secured until the parent is capable of caring for it fact! There is a reluctance by all govt agencies when it comes to crossing the cultural barrier that identifies when a child is better of out of harms way fact! Or do we continue to play this PC bullshit game until the child is ready to bury, won’t take long from the sound of it. Quite funny when I see posts like yours woppo offer plenty of criticism but no answers to the problem at hand, in this case you may like to get off the fence and add something to help the child. I am part Maori so save your do good crap also! I do applaud the efforts of the truck driver, if you had of been part of the original discussion on this topic a few weeks ago you will see that. Go back and familiarise yourself then come back and add something constructive.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:37 pm
It matters not one bit if she is Maori of Pakeha. Nor would it matter if she is male or female. She’s a poor parent if she drives drunk with kids in the car. Alcoholics can’t be trusted. Drunks are drunks. They are not “sick” they are drunks. And all my experiences with drunks have been bad ones. I don’t know of any who did a good job with their kids, their work, whatever. And most drunks always place the blame on others and see themselves as victims. I wouldn’t hire a drunk, give them custody, trust their word on anything.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:32 pm
If the driver had been male, CYFS would have swooped in and removed the children immediatly. Fair enough too you could say. Anyone with such little regard for theirs and their siblings and the public’s lives should not be anywhere near children. But my point is there are different rules for wimmin in our fair land unfortunatly and I can see a slap on the wrist with a wet ticket coming her way which will not change one ounce of her attitude.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:18 pm
“Alcoholics can’t be trusted. Drunks are drunks. They are not “sick” they are drunks. And all my experiences with drunks have been bad ones.”
Speaking as someone who’s had alcoholism in the family and seen what it can do, allow me to say this: fuck off you smug little tosspot.
Alcoholism *is* a disease, and a very hard one to get better from.
BTW, other posters here seem to be suggesting that everyone in New Zealand with an alcohol problem should have their children removed by the state.
Really? Have you tried thinking about what that would mean?
Cheers,
RB
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Hmm, whacking a kid with a riding crop or driving pissed out of your brain so that if you crash you and your child are likely to be decapitated. Not really equivalent. How about a bit of perspective fellas?
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:32 pm
‘all my experiences with drunks have been bad ones‘
Someone didn’t have much fun as a teenager . . .
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:41 pm
” I am part Maori so save your do good crap also!”
As if that has anything to do with it. From your post, it’s plain that whatever else you may be, you’re a stupid little racist whucker.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Morons breed and endanger their children all the time and,in the main,we allow it because the alternative would ressemble a controlling repressive Govt.(erp … I think my argument is collapsing)but really;however we may rant about the unsuitability of some people as parents,PC social workers and the like continue to breast beat and rev up the trusty old ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Much as I detest child cruelty,the imposition of “sanctioned selective eugenics” would be much worse.Jeez I’m tempted sometimes though!!
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Mark –
Well, one poses the POSSIBILITY of physical harm to the child, the other provides CERTAINTY of physical harm to the child. But since the possible option is more serious than the certain one, I’d say that pretty much balances out to make them about equal.
Both are retarded and unnecessary and you won’t see me defending either.
November 2nd, 2005 at 5:01 pm
CYF is mentioned, I think the public needs to be made aware what is going on behind closed doors with CYF, and that there are some stories they do not want you to know.
http://whereareyouesther.blogspot.com/
TVNZ close up interviewed a pair( the runaway cyfs girl and her Mum) 6 weeks ago, it was about to be aired when the courts decided to put on an injuction on it because THEY were afraid that the truth ( of perjury committed by social workers) may come out.
November 2nd, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Sound off all you like..will someone tell me why I am wrong?And make sense.I am nothing if not pragmatic.And I am not deaf.
November 2nd, 2005 at 5:52 pm
Woppo, why can’t you accept the fact no one is being racist, no one cares about being branded a racist in this country any more,it has been done to death, Maori bashing yeh right. Did it surprise you to find that in a case like this that the mother was Maori. Does it surprise you that CYPS has not taken the child into care, I am not surprised. There are so many different rules in this country depending on the colour of the skin, what cultural boundaries can/can’t be crossed. While children as in this case and the other 2 since the election killed by ignorant scum should never be allowed to have children again. While ignoramuses like yourself sit there adding nothing but hot air and bullshit, go on big boy tell us how to deal with the issue, come on then give us just 1 opinion TWAT.
November 2nd, 2005 at 5:54 pm
*yawn* Another sad little alcoholic who is in deep denial along with her enablers. And, RB, I’d be very careful about “medicalising” alcoholism – because it’s not the flu, and that kind of rhetoric can just become another way to rationalise drinking and the consequent abuse of others.
Cold as this may sound, it might have been better for all concerned if Coburn had run the car off the road and put her kids into the nearest ICU – or an early grave. Every alcoholic has to hit the floor, and perhaps seeing your own child on a respirator (or in a coffin) because of your actions might have done the trick.
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:55 pm
*Ouch*.. i’d say that’s going a little too far (killing a child to make an alcoholic see the error of her ways?) but I do agree with Craig’s sentiment that tolerance for drunk-driving is not an option.
Can we separate alcoholism and drunk driving?
Medicate alcoholics, sure, but take away their licenses too. As soon as they get behind the wheel it is everyone else who becomes the victim.
Finally Culma, do you pull out catch words like ‘Maori’ and ‘PC’ just for special occasions? Or do you really view the world that simplistically?
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:07 pm
And, RB, I’d be very careful about “medicalising” alcoholism – because it’s not the flu, and that kind of rhetoric can just become another way to rationalise drinking and the consequent abuse of others.
Craig, you know I strive not to be rude, but … shut up until you know what you’re talking about. Alcoholism is a disease. It is defined as such by the WHO, the American Medical Association and almost every other relevant authority. It has both genetic and environmental causes.
This is *not* the same as excusing any behaviour. But intoning about not “medicalising” alcoholism is redundant and ignorant.
Cheers,
RB
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:32 pm
Ya self-righteous bunch of humourless pussies; DPF just posts this kind of crap to crank your handles. All PR is good PR as far as he is concerned.
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Craig,you are clearly a person of deep feeling.Are you also a dad?I had my child when I was 42 and I watched her like a hawk.I watched her every second until she was old enough to cross the road.I still watch her even though she hates it and I try to back off.Some parents do not do this and their children get run over in driveways or on the road.Maybe having many children,mitigates against the sadness of losing one?
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:08 pm
There are two things going on here.
One is when and where the state should intervene and remove children from their parents – some believe it should almost never happen, others are willing to have it happen at the drop of a hat – in most cases most people are not willing to do much themselves to help kids with abusive or negligent parents, unless they know them. Taking children from alcoholic parents would be an enormous step – another would be taking children from parents who smoke around them – how about parents who view adult movies in front of them, or parents who speed.
On the other hand, if it were sexual – the state would jump on them, as there is zero tolerance for any level of sexual abuse – a father showering naked with his daughter starts to make authorities concerned. If he touched her – regardless of context and she told someone innocently about it, he will probably face the full force of the law assuming the worst.
However, if the children were threatened, intimidated, physically abused or passengers in a vehicle driven dangerously – nobody wants to intervene.
This isn’t a matter of race – there is a vile subculture of parents who at best don’t think about their children, at worst abuse them methodically. My post here
http://libertyscott.blogspot.com/2005/10/violence-against-children-isnt-that.html
discusses that.
So you choose? I believe the state should remove custody if there is a clear and immediate danger to the life and health of the child to remain in custody. That means a risk, on the balance of probabilities, that the child will be physically or sexually abused or chronically neglected in the immediate future. It doesn’t mean – Mum’s an alcoholic, or Mum’s a bad driver. If Mum has been drink driving then take away her licence, take away her car if she repeats, fine anyone who lets her use their car.
Libertyscott
November 3rd, 2005 at 12:34 am
What makes alcoholism a disease? Is it due to a germ? Can one catch it? Is it a disease the way that cancer is a disease? Can cancer victims go through 12 steps to change the disease? Of course not. It is a metaphor not a literal illness. We spend far too much time telling people that their behavioural problems are the results of a “disease”. They are not behaving badly, they are sick. We are removing individual responsibility when we pretend that people who act badly are ill. I’ve seen too many people who have “addictions” simply make up their mind they will stop and do it immediately. You can’t do that with any disease. You can’t simply decide not to have heart disease or cancer. That one can choose to stop the actions indicates it is a matter of individual decision making.
November 3rd, 2005 at 12:50 am
Sorry to change the subject,but I have just seen reports on the filthy,cruel food markets in China.Err disgusting.No wonder we are facing a global pandemic.Have these people no compassion or shame?Yuck!
November 3rd, 2005 at 12:51 am
Sorry to change the subject,but I have just seen reports on the filthy,cruel food markets in China.Err disgusting.No wonder we are facing a global pandemic.Have these people no compassion or shame?Yuck!
November 3rd, 2005 at 8:14 am
RB:
I am going to be rude, so begging your pardon in advance: I didn’t express myself very well, but but try not to be such a fucking pompous cock Russell.
Apart from the three weeks when I don’t have a clue what the hell I was doing, and the decades spent in a classic co-dependent relationship with an alcoholic partent (who was just “ill” and needed her medicine until she passed out on the floor), what the fuck do I know? I don’t recall you, the WHO or any member of the AMA spending any time at my house mopping up the vomit, trying to keep the lies straight and believe the incredible promises, or just trying to get through the neverending head games.
What frustrates me about the alcoholism as disease meme (which isn’t totally inaccurate) is that it’s useful to the addict as a rationale to keep on the absue of self and others.
I’ve not only seen it, Russell, I’ve lived it. Try it sometime.
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:54 am
Wrong again, Russell. As much as you enjoy shooting blame for every individual failure in society back to capitalism, your formula doesn’t work.
It isn’t relevant whether alcoholism is a disease, you fucking prat. Alcoholism did not cause this woman to drive while drunk. Alcoholism did not inspire her to place her child’s life in danger.
I know, and have known, alcoholics. They are invariably self-destructive personalities. Very few of them make conscious choices to destroy other people’s lives. But those that do make those choices can never blame the bottle for their behaviour.
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:35 am
Cripes. Both Russell & Craig have had personal experience with alcoholics – and they’ve come up with 2 radically divergent opinions about it.
According to Ayn Rand, that shouldn’t be possible. There’s only ever one correct way of interpreting any situation. So, I must admit I’m at a complete loss. I hope you 2 sort it out – because you’re shaking my worldview here.